Sunken Garden

Technology Task Force

Joint TTF & CBT Meeting Notes - December 1, 2011

 

1) Approve the Notes from November 3, 2011

The notes were referenced but not officially approved.

 

2) Measure C FF&E Phase II Evaluation Matrix.

Jeanpierre explained that this was a joint meeting. Campus Budget had been invited to join Technology Task Force to participate in the finalization of the Measure C FF&E evaluation matrix. This was as per the agreed process as stated in the timeline that was approved by the Campus Budget team, Technology Task Force, Deans, PBTs, and Academic senate. The FF&E matrix item was first on the agenda so that members of the Campus Budget team could leave after the discussion if they wished. Jeanpierre apologized for having to leave the meeting early because the President had requested she attend another meeting.

Metcalf asked Chow to lead the discussion on the Measure C FF&E matrix agenda item.

Chow opened by reviewing the work done so far by the various shared governances groups. According to the approved timeline, this joint meeting would be asked to finalize the matrix. Approval of matrix was sought so the governance groups could use it as a prioritization tool.

During the discussion the following points/comments were made:

  • The matrix would be a useful and adequate tool for the PBTs
  • The matrix was a baseline viewpoint to look at each project on an even footing
  • Once the initial prioritization was made, each project could then be considered in more detail
  • The numbers of student served is useful information
  • The value to the students/program is more important than the number of students served (qualitative over quantitative)
  • Requests that serve a large number of students should be ranked highly (quantitative over qualitative)
  • If there was not enough money to fund all the projects each project should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Mitchell raised a concern that reviewers may look at the matrix as a mandated set of criteria and not as an evaluation tool. Reviewers may take the criteria too literally which may lead to some good requests being ranked low. The questions asked on the narrative request sheet were not well thought through and did not take into account the varied values and qualities of individual department needs. He was concerned that using a matrix would not take into account the importance of the request from the departmental level and the whole process seemed too rushed and needed more thoughtful discussion.

While addressing his concerns the team suggested that the matrix should be thought of as analogous to the ‘Hiring Committee” criteria. In that it is a tool to assist with the decision-making process, not a set of fixed critieria that must be followed. In other words, it could be used as one form of input that the PBTs could use if they wish. Wording to capture the intent of the matrix and to clarify that it should not be used mechanically could be added. 

In closing the discussion, Metcalf asked Mitchell what other changes he would like to see in the document that would make it more palatable. Mitchell referred back to his previous statements and said he did not wish to belabor his point.

Chow made the recommendation that an overarching statement about the use of this matrix as an evaluation tool be added to the bottom.

Metcalf and Chow asked the team if, with the addition of the clarification statement added to the matrix, the team could agree to approve the matrix as a workable evaluative tool for the PBTs to use if they wish.

By consensus, the group approved the matrix with the addition of a clarification statement added to the bottom.

 

3) Finalize The Technology Prioritization List

Infrastructure Project Status

User-Requested Project Status

Luciw clarified that the team only needed to prioritize the User Requested projects that had not been started. 

After a general discussion the team agreed to the following:

  • Identify the problem that needs to be addressed.
  • If there are competing systems the users should get together to discuss their requirements
  • Choose projects that have the greatest benefit to the college
  • Consider the cost-benefits ratios
  • The team decided that Foothill projects would not be prioritized - Dental Hygiene Software (FH); Fire Alarms (FH); Public Address System (FH); Emergency Phones (FH)
  • Asked that the Physical Security System line item be broken out into the individual projects i.e. Fire Alarms (FH) Public Address System (FH); Emergency Phones (FH); Security Cameras (MLC)

The following action was taken:

  • Banner Asset Management - changed from “C” to “N”
  • L7/A8 Gig connections - removed from list
  • Managed locks - changed from “?” to “N”
  • SARS Phase III - changed from “?” to “N”
  • Security Cameras (MLC) – no consensus

At 3 p.m. the team agreed to stop even although they had not completed the list.

 

4) Quick News

None reported.

 

Present: Bloom Chow Dolen Gerard Hu Jeanpierre Jenkins Kahn Luciw Metcalf Michaelis Mieso Mitchell Qian Rosenburg Shannakian Wilkins-Greene. Notes: Gibson.

 

 



Technology Task Force
Building: ADM 153
Contact: Pippa Gibson
Phone: 408.864.8936
sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 12/2/11